Date was 2021-02-25: Hello. I have just finished reading: 5 Australian Federal Police https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/ExtremistMovements/Submissions https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=8852a566-c130-4c8b-be72-7029327137f9&subId=702963 I'd like to commend it for being a professionally-written document, and I agree with a lot of it, but there is also stuff I vehemently disagree with and would like to respond to, point by point. It would be great if the AFP (or anyone else who agrees with the AFP) deemed fit to respond to my response via any form it feels like, preferably point by point rather than a general "sorry, we disagree". Here goes ... > The AFP's longstanding position is to target criminality not ideology. This is actually a good point. It's not the police's job to address ideology. We really need a "Department of Ideological Correction". I can remember a US military spokesman saying that ISIS is an ideology and the ideology itself needs to be defeated. I think he was asked who is responsible for doing that, and all he could come up with was "no-one does social media like Americans". In other words, he put out a vague call for citizens to "do something". In my opinion we need something far more systematic than that. The government (any government) should provide a list of ISIS talking points, and address every single one of them with links to base materials. Then whenever an "American" is on "social media" he/she is armed with a ton of carefully vetted information rather than "memory of something he/she read on a blog". And if "the government" comes up with left-wing talking points to counter the ISIS talking points, then I personally will come up with a point-by-point counter-argument to everything "the government" publishes. That's the best I can do. Hopefully a BETTER government will pick up my non-left-wing list of points. > As a result, law enforcement experience a gap in being able to > pursue individuals who simply possess or disseminate > abhorrent or violent content that is not instructional or does not > meet these thresholds, resulting in investigators being unable to > disrupt individuals and small groups at an earlier stage in the > attack planning continuum. I would advise doing the exact opposite of that. So many people have a beautiful image of "world peace", involving a dove. So when Saddam ran "rape rooms" and cut out people's tongues, a dove sang a song. That's what "peace" looks like. I don't know where to find videos of what happened in Saddam's rape rooms, but I do know where to find videos of Saddam's goons chopping out people's tongues and other horrors. I would make that compulsory viewing at school for all 13-year-old children (age negotiable), in an attempt to give them nightmares about what "peace" REALLY means, and to advocate WAR instead. The ADF are heroes for ENDING "world peace" and STARTING "world war" instead. John Howard is a hero for giving the ADF the nod. If you ever obtain video of an Iraqi woman screaming as she is being raped in one of Saddam's rape rooms, make that compulsory viewing too. If we're talking about non-state violence (personally I consider ISIS a state - it controlled territory and had laws and military etc, even though it was only temporary and never recognized by the UN), well, Fox News deemed fit to show the entire video of the Jordanian pilot being burned alive by ISIS. How do you intend to arrest Fox News staff for doing that? You would need to declare war on America in order to get them to change the law to what the AFP allegedly needs, and the ADF simply isn't capable of doing that. It is entirely pointless eliminating violent material from Australian websites if it is available on American ones. You're just annoying people. And you're doing an enormous thing anyway - censorship. You shouldn't be denying video YOU find objectionable, unless you're willing to deny video *I* find objectionable. I've got a whole long list of that, and you won't like that. > In addition, AFP engagement with state and territory police > partners has identified numerous requests by police for > home owners to remove flags considered offensive by the > community, including the Nazi flag. Though individuals > have complied, there does not appear to be a criminal > offence which prohibits the display of these items. First they came for our guns, now they come for our Nazi flags? You know what I find offensive? The "Aboriginal" flag. But no, I don't think the police should be confiscating it or passing legislation to ban it. But for god's sake, the fucking government is flying that! On public property!!! I wish there was such a thing as a "white" flag. I would wear a t-shirt with that on it, to counter the racist Aboriginal flag. Actually I was thinking it would be good to have a t-shirt with the Aboriginal flag, the "white" flag, and the Nazi flag and the Communist flag. Take your pick which you want to be offended by. Note that communism has the highest death toll, so I don't know why that wasn't mentioned in your report. So the message of my t-shirt is that ethnic Vietnamese are not welcome here unless they are either Nazis or Communists. Better than the government's message that only Aborigines are welcome. It would be OK if you actually changed the Australian flag to the Aboriginal flag, so that it stops being race-related and instead nation-related. I'll still fly the "boxing kangaroo" though. Or the NATO flag. My choice until the AFP makes that illegal too and kicks down my door. Yeah, so much for an aversion to "violence". Just be honest and admit that you are violent intolerant assholes looking for more opportunities to kick down my door. > The AFP also partners with the CVE Centre to contribute to a > consistent Whole-ofGovernment approach in the implementation > of the National Living Safe Together Intervention Program, which > provides a treatment option for individuals at-risk of radicalising > to violent extremism, or already on a pathway to violence. These > intervention programs take an ideology neutral approach and cater > for all drivers of radicalisation to violence. I was actually interested in signing up to this program at the start of the paragraph, but lost interest when you said "ideology neutral". I want to go head-to-head with the government's "Department of Ideological Correction". If you openly admit you have no ideology to sell, I've got nothing to buy. I'm guessing that the purpose of this is to stop individuals from using violence (even in self-defense?). And that the state should have a monopoly on violence. Ok, actually I can go along with that. But you should spell out why. The use of violence is not immoral of itself. If you see someone enslaved by Saddam, using violence against Saddam is a good thing. But anything other than state violence is completely ineffective. The most you can do is create an annoyance. Explain how the military works, and terrorism doesn't. I don't think that when Osama did 9/11 he was expecting the result would be freedom for 52 million Muslims. He actually asked for Americans to "get over it". No sunshine. Doesn't work like that. Anyway, bottom line of a program such as above is that if you want to gas Jews or something, then start an Australian Nazi Party and do it via state violence which actually works. You have no anti-Nazi ideology to sell. > Further, the increased prevalence and ease of access online makes > it easier to radicalise young people and encourage their alignment > with international extremist groups. As noted above, the AFP is > aware of individuals as young as 13 years old holding XRW views. And why do you ignore the elephant in the room? What about children as young as 4 years old being Jew-hating Islamists? I saw a young girl on Saudi TV saying she didn't like Jews because they were "pigs and monkeys". She was told "you are a good Muslim!" > The JCTTs work diligently to pursue those responsible where they > are identified. However, increased criminal use of anonymising > technologies on such platforms degrades the ability of Australian > agencies to address extremist movements, radicalisation of > individuals and preparations for acts of terrorism. As such, it is > equally important that AFP and partner agencies prevent those > people in our community who are vulnerable to radicalisation > from being exposed to such material in the first place. Time for you to put your money where your mouth is. Start by banning the Bible and the Quran. E.g. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 which *commands* (the word used is "shall" - that means you have to do it, not "if you feel like it") you to torture your own children to death. Read and weep. Ban them, then we can talk about what to ban next. I have a real long list on that too. You can start with the "critical race theory" entry on Wikipedia. God only knows how many people have read that and said "Wtf? Is that what white people are up to? Kill the lot! Certainly ok to rape white women, anyway!". > Criminal behaviour, and particularly conduct which encourages or > incites violence against others, should not be tolerated or immune > from prosecution merely because Australia's laws have not kept > pace with technology to apply equally to the physical and virtual > or digital world, allowing criminals to exploit technology and > operate outside our reach. How many non-white men rape white women based on the "encouragement or incitement" of critical race theory espoused by left-wing slime? Has anybody even bothered to ask? Start with that, then we'll talk. Or kick down my door because you violent assholes are bigger than me, whatever you goons feel like I guess. You have my address already. I'm completely unarmed. You won't get scratched. You can send an unarmed 10 year old girl with a badge and I won't resist arrest. I hope you're proud of violating people's human rights, including freedom of speech. #assholes BFN. Paul.